No Casus Foederis for Canada in President Trump’s War in Iran and Iraq
Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Soleimani (AP Photo/Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader)
US President Donald Trump’s unilateral decision to kill one of Iran’s most powerful military leaders, Major General Qassem Soleimani, has severely escalated tensions between the US-Iran-Iraq, changing the political and military dynamics in the Middle East with serious consequences for the NATO alliance and Canada’s involvement therein. As a result, Canada has suspended its two Iraq-based operations and must now reassess its deployment of military personnel in the region.
Quite predictably, Iran swore revenge and followed through by striking a US airbase in Iraq, and also pulled out from its nuclear agreement with the world. Meanwhile, Iraq, NATO’s supposed ally, has voted in their Parliament "to work towards ending the presence of all foreign troops on Iraqi soil." In response, the Trump administration has vowed US forces will not leave Iraq, threatening heavy economic sanctions if US troops are forced out.
There has been and will be pressure from the US on Canada, through NATO, to expand its military capacity in the region. However, as the US continues its policy of economic isolation and violent hostility towards Iran and others in the region, Canada has no obligation to defend the US or any NATO ally in a violent conflict in the Middle East region under the terms of the NATO Treaty, with the exception of Turkey.
Simply put, there is no “case for the alliance” or casus foederis in the Middle East under the terms of the NATO Treaty.
Former Canadian Senator Hugh Segal argued in The Globe and Mail on January 6th that any attack against US military personnel including embassies in the region could qualify under Article 5 of the NATO (Washington) Treaty that stipulates an attack against one NATO ally is an attack against all.
This is a misinterpretation of Canada’s NATO Treaty obligation. There is no casus foederis obligation for Canada or any NATO ally in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East region. As outlined in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, the principle of collective defence only exists in Europe or North America. The terrorist attacks on September 11th were on American soil, and thus qualified.
The changing political and military dynamics as a result of the killing of Soleimani requires Canada to re-evaluate its ongoing participation in its two separate Iraq-based operations: Operation IMPACT and NATO Mission in Iraq (NMI), for which approximately 500 Canadian personnel are deployed.
These operations have cost Canadians over $1 billion since 2014 and have evolved from combat to non-combat missions. Currently, the Canadian and NATO objective is to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) by training Iraqi troops. A simultaneous objective is the stabilization of Iraqi democracy. Achieving these objectives has become increasingly difficult and unsafe due to the destabilization of the region as a result of the killing of Soleimani. Consequently, Canada’s decision to suspend both operations is a cautious and laudable one that may have saved the lives of Canadian personnel, and buys the Canadian government time to further assess the rapidly evolving situation in Iraq and Iran.
Canada’s Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan has defended the decision to suspend the Canadian-led Operation IMPACT and NATO Mission in Iraq (NMI) by arguing that it would be a threat to Canadian soldiers and personnel to continue these operations at this time.
“The NATO mission and Operation IMPACT’s mandate remain the same, but all training activities in Iraq are suspended temporarily as we continue to monitor the security environment,” Sajjan said. Subsequently, some of the 500 military personnel involved in both operations in Iraq have been moved to Kuwait.
Canada must decide to continue or permanently cease Operation IMPACT and NMI based on the existence of the following conditions: allied respect for Iraqi parliamentary sovereignty, and Canadian confidence in a long-term, legal, and collaborative US-led strategy for a stable and democratic Iraq. Without these two basic conditions being met, the fight against ISIL will become much more difficult, if not impossible, and perhaps even illegal.
If the Iraqi Parliament does not want Canada operating there, then Canada ought not to be there. The US, concerningly, appears unwilling to respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi Parliament. If the US does not adhere to enforceable Iraqi Parliamentary motions that expel it from operating militarily in the region, then Canada ought to object as such behaviour undermines the rules-based world order predicated on respect for the sovereignty of nation-states.
Given the destabilizing effect of the US-led killing of Soleimani on Iraqi soil, Canada must re-evaluate its confidence in a long-term, legal, and collaborative US-led strategy for a stable and democratic Iraq. If Canada cannot be confident in the long-term logic, morality, and legality of US strategy for Iraq, Iran, and the rest of the Middle East; it should no longer be operating in an alliance with the US or NATO in the region. Indeed, the absence of a collaborative American presence has already threatened the security of Canadian personnel in Iraq.
To permanently suspend Operation IMPACT and NMI is not to say that developments in the region are “none of Canada’s business,” but rather that Canada’s participation in a military alliance led by the current United States President who is willing to recklessly escalate conflict with Iran and Iraq is neither in Canadian strategic interests nor legally required.
What are in Canadian interests is a democratic and stable Iraq, and an Iran that is economically, socially, and politically integrated with the world in exchange for a verifiable guarantee that it is nuclear-weapon free. Such an agreement was achieved and thus can be again. Canada should continue to pursue these objectives, and these are simultaneously in the interest of the world, but the deployment of troops in the region may no longer be the most effective means by which to do so.
Chris Stoicheff is a Master of Public Policy and Global Affairs student at the University of British Columbia. He previously completed his BA and MA at the University of Saskatchewan, where he wrote his MA thesis on foreign takeovers in Canada's non-renewable resource sector. Chris is interested in numerous foreign policy issues, including East Asian policy, human rights, foreign investment, and regional conflict dispute resolution.